Red in NY times

Ok i know this is slightly off topic.

The NY times article mentions Miami Vice and the use of the Thomson Viper in that movie.

Quote:We made use of the Viper’s amazing depth of field,” Mr. Beebe said. “You’re seeing clearly from two inches to infinity.”

Also read elswhere that it was used in this movie because of its great low light qualities that enabled night shots to be made etc.

The Viper is a 2/3rds 3CCD camera with 9million pixels per sensor.
We all know by now the Reds specs so far.

Thoughout discussion amongst experienced forum members the impression i got was that by using a 2/3rds lens on the Red camera it would give a SLIGHT improvement on the DOF qualities. Thus you would get more DOF compared to the s35 sensor/lens with its shallow DOF. Excepted that the low light qualities coming from a 2/3rds sensor /lens would be inferior to s35mm lens/sensor all other things being the same!

But when you read the comments from the Miami Vice above they talk of the vipers "amazing DOP seeing from 2 inches to infinity" AND great low light etc.

The impression gained from that article is more of a LARGE DIFFERENCE in DOF moving from 2/3rds from s35mm. So i stick on a 2/3rds lens and i get an amazing DOF with the Red camera OR I stick on an s35mm lens and get an amazing shallow DOF still using the Red camera.

Edited due to extreme sunstroke ?why did i put P instead of F.... Michael

Or is there something about the viper that i have missed or what????

Confused Confused Confused. What is it slight difference or great difference???

Michael
 
Last edited:
First off, let's clarify a few things...

When you use the acronym DOP, I assuming that you meant Depth of Field (DOF), not Director of Photography (DoP). Or maybe you meant Depth of Phield ;).

There's a great thread over on the dvinfo.net forum where Greg Lowry clears up a bunch of apparently common misconceptions about the depth of field produced by different combinations of lens format, sensor/film format and focal length. It's a quality read.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=70218

Also, as CCD or CMOS sensors are generally much more sensitive to light than film, ie. you don't need as much light to produce a similar image, you would be able to use a smaller aperture, which lets in less light, but gives more Depth of Field.

Hope this clears things up a little.
 
I'm putting my self out there. But I think thats right a 2/3 B4 mount will give you more DOF useing less sensor.
 
size of sensor does not matter on DOF.. technically. it changes the focal point of the lens, which creates the difference in depth..
 
Jarred, not sure whether selective quoting like this from other forums is kosher or not, but here goes. Greg Lowry just puts it so well, I didn't see the point of rewriting it in my own words.

Greg Lowry said:
...the focal length [of a lens] will remain the same (a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, no matter what format), but image magnification obtained from a 35mm format lens will increase when used on a S16 format camera, i.e. a "normal" lens on a 35mm format camera becomes more of a telephoto on an S16 format camera.

and then on a seperate post,

...a lens used on a smaller format will result in increased relative image magnification, BUT the same focal length lens, with the same aperture setting, focused at the same distance, on either an S16 camera or a 2/3" sensor camera [or presumably a S35 camera] will yield exactly the same DOF. The DOF characteristics of a 10mm lens (for example) are always the same, so matter what the format. And in this context, depth of field is not format related.

In other contexts, it is. As you may require, say, a 9mm lens on the 2/3" camera to achieve the same image magnification as the 10mm on S16, all other things being equal, the 9mm will have greater depth of field.
Click to expand...

So hopefully that clears that up.

In terms of image quality in low light for S35 film vs 2/3" video Viper vs S35 video RED,
that might be a discussion for an entirely different thread...
 
Last edited:
It's important not to take the terms used in a non-technical article too literally. The quote about "amazing depth of field" doesn't mean that other systems aren't capable of the same thing. They are. Remember, the article is mostly a comparision of film to digital.

In practical terms, depth of field of a 2/3" sensor/lens combination is, of course, greater than a S35 sensor/lens combination. In Miami Vice's case, much of the movie is night exteriors (like Michael Mann's last movie "Collateral" which used a combination of the Viper, Sony F900, and 35mm film). Digital sensors tend to perform better in low light situations than film, and the Viper is well-know for its excellent low light performance. And by using the short focal length lenses required for 2/3" sensors, DOF is greatly increased over the equivalent 35mm film (or S35 sensor) format. Very useful if the intention is to capture night exterior atmospherics. So the 2/3" format was a good choice for Miami Vice and Collateral. A movie that's mostly day exteriors may have different requirements.

It should be noted that the Viper sensors do not, strictly speaking, each have 9.2 million pixels. The Viper uses an ingenious sensor design with 4320 small vertical "sub-pixels" and 1920 standard sized horizontal pixels which allows the sensor to be electronically configured for optimum 720p and 1080p in 16x9 and widescreen mode (2.37:1) without cropping the sensor, thus maximizing spatial resolution for all formats. Not all of these sub-pixels are used for every format. The maximum number of full-sized pixels is 1920x1080. The 9.2 milllion number is actually: 1920 pixels x 4320 subpixels = 8,294,400 effective pixels (really a combination of sub-pixels and full-sized pixels). The 9.2 million number is really a marketing number more than a real number. I don't know why Thomson Grass Valley uses it because it can result in confusion.

Assuming that the RED sensor is at least as sensitive as the Viper sensor, one should be able to obtain similar DOF to the Viper when using an S16 or 2/3 format with appropriate lenses on the RED. Happy now? haha.
 
Last edited:
yeah they do use sub pixels but to be fair they dont do it to try and gain more resolution... The viper uses sub pixels to change the aspect ratio of the pixels, so you can go 16:9 or 2:35 without the need for anamorphic adapters... and without cropping. Its actually quite a brilliant way to do things.
 
Nice summary Greg.

They also increased the low light with the shutter adjustment. I think a lot of people get messed up with DOF because they don't get Field of View comparisons.

As I was reading the article and they put the Dalsa, D20, and Genesis in the same sentence with RED, I couldn't help thinking "Damn, I'm buying this camera, and its comparable...what a trip"!

There's no Palm trees in Toronto, but the low light possiblities/qualities for this camera are a major reason to consider it, above and beyond its competitors. Toronto Vice, here I come :grin:

:beer:


RED # wish I was higher
 
"Banana Belt" is a relative term...I think you meant pine trees for Vancouver! With it 106 degrees in L.A. I bet you'd like to go back and visit Vancouver for a few weeks Jarred...

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
 
All the Canadian palm trees (and a high percentage of the coconuts) are in Vancouver.
Click to expand...
Jarred Land said:
haha ha.. yes. DVXuser was started under a palmtree in Vancouver.
Click to expand...
Lol.

Why does that remind me of the discovery of gravity with a falling apple ?, except in this case it's a fictional coconut and DVX user :)

One thing that Mike mentioned in his summary as producers not wanting to embrace Digital Cinema or high end HD, or whatever else you want to call it, is the "no time" for glitches or experimentation, due to big name talent waiting, and cost. I would be interested in a comparison between a film shoot and digital shoot in that regard. I don't think one has been done yet, except for some anectdotal data (example Superman's dailies hold up). I would have thought that either production would demand testing months in advance of principal photography (makeup, light, lenses etc...) technicians on set, and similar redundancies in equipment on set. I suppose there still are prejudices to overcome. :(

:beer:

Edit : If you were shooting a narrative feature, how much time would you plan to shakedown the camera and workflow ?

RED# wish I was higher
 
Last edited:
Gibby said:
"Banana Belt" is a relative term...I think you meant pine trees for Vancouver! With it 106 degrees in L.A. I bet you'd like to go back and visit Vancouver for a few weeks Jarred...

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
Click to expand...

true enough.. i just got back from hawaii and it was a total reverse.. when the plane landed at LAX I started to sweat and when I landed in Oahu it felt like someone turned the air conditioning on.
 
Thanks guys for the replies, i edited my typing error from P to F re DOF Must be the sunstroke we are having a heatwave in Scotland and the temps are way too high:) this is extremely rare for us here!!

Greg You have finally given me the answer i was really looking for. Not just an improved DOF but a much improved DOF when a 2/3rds lens is used. I kept looking at the size of a s35mm lens and at the back of my mind i kept thinking there must be a huge difference.Now everything has fallen in to place

Like the rest of you when you here Red talked about in the same article as cameras costing many times Red's price you just know you have made the right decision on reserving your Red camera:)

I think we are going to see for the first time at IBC in september the new Red Body, the new Monitor with its smart focus assist, the Red Drive. The EVF and the footage. Why do i think this? Well because Red wants to prepare itself well in advance for MASS PRODUCTION and it needs a better estimate of demand than what it already has. Just a thought... i could very easily be wrong. Talking of the focus assist, does anyone think it could have the same focus assist that Jarrad mentioned on one of his posts that a particular still camera i think or whatever camera had "face recognition" I just felt no one said much of this technology when it was mentioned but could it be converted to be usable in a video camera.

Michael
 
Michael, let me quantify the DOF difference through an example:

Super 16 format: 9.5mm lens (68.6 degree horizontal angle of view), aperture setting T1.3, focused at 5 feet: depth of field from about 2 feet to almost infinity;

Super 35 format: 18mm lens (also 68.6 degree horizontal angle of view), aperture setting T1.3, focused at 5 feet: depth of field from about 3' 10" to 5' 9". Ouch!

This is not a completely fair comparison as you'd have to move the S16 camera closer to your subject for the same relative image magnification of the subject, but you can see why it was a desirable choice to use 2/3" sensor Viper cameras for Miami Vice's night exterior shooting. Even wider lenses would result in almost unlimited DOF, even wide open. They probably used Zeiss DigiPrime T1.6 and T1.9 lenses on Miami Vice, but you get the idea that DOF with 2/3" or S16 formats can be MUCH greater than S35.

*DOF Calculations made quickly with trusty Samcine MkII DOF Calculator (which is a non-electronic device).
 
Last edited:
Greg i was looking at that the other night after you had posted some really excellent comments/work done on the depth of field/ field of view and the focal angle with different lenses. Once again you manage to surpass and provide me and others with a real tutorial with regarding lenses and their types uses etc.

Ps where can you buy/ or obtain a DOF calculation chart for the windows based PC. i know there is a MAC one that is free for own use to download but does it work with windows PC?. I would like to get used to knowing at least in theory what my DOF is likely to be with various stops at varying distances etc so i am prepared for Red One take off.

Michael
 
Forget about a computer DOF calculator, you need something for the field where the action is!

Try to find one of these: http://cinemasupplies.stores.yahoo.net/sammkiidepof.html.

They're basically indestructible and can be used anywhere, even in water. I note that they're sold out, but they turn up used. Even the previous version, the Mark II, is nearly as useful.

There are a variety of DOF calculator apps for Mac, Windows and Palms, but I prefer the Samcine because it's just so simple and smart. I've had my Mark II since 1980. Lest you need any further convincing: Kubrick used one.

Others:

http://www.dofmaster.com/

http://cdof.sourceforge.net/

Google "depth of field calculator" for more.
 
Last edited:
You can take this with a grain of marketing salt, but on like page 5 of the august edition of American Cinematographer there's an ad for the zeis 6-24mm digizoom. The whole ad is a quote by Dion Beebe about shooting Miami Vice. Sounded like the digiprimes wouldn't be in line with most of the shooting done Miami Vice. However since it's also a T1.9 it's still effectively identical in the context of this discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top